Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

okay theists! Here's your time to shine! (HELL)

Posted on: August 31, 2009 - 9:18pm

BB4_intellect

Posts: 33

Joined: 2008-05-18

Offline

okay theists! Here's your time to shine! (HELL)

So, just out of my own morbid curiosity, if any of you do in fact believe in HELL, what is your version of it? Better yet, I know some of you actually believe you've had a genuine taste of it. Please indulge.

Wouldn't you consider that to be impossible? Are you sure you don't mean any existence wherein god is not believed to exist? I'm nitpicking, but I want you to be consistent with your crazy.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

Not necessarily. You would have to research Hebrew for the literal translation. Its been a long time since I even opened a bible but if memory serves me well, "Hell" is taken to mean "separate(d) from God." There are several translations from the hebrew text, each having a different meaning.

If you are asking my opinion however, then no, I would not consider it to be impossible. You could choose to turn your back on God, and commit yourself to an eternity of existence without "Him." That to me would be Hell.

I'm not sure if that is the answer you are looking for though. But we can talk it over.

In order for us atheists to be completely tortured, we would need Christians in hell with us continually telling us how we need to love and give our lives to their invisible friend. So hell can't exist without Christians there to literally annoy the hell out of us with their religion.

So theists, how could hell exist for us without you there to annoy us with your talk of your loving god?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

If God is not there and has never been there, how can God or you know that hell is all that bad? Maybe Satan and all the atheists are all just having a great time, better than heaven. God would never know, since he doesn't ever hang out there. Maybe Satan only turns the heat up when it comes time to drop another atheist inside, the rest of the time it's air conditioned.

And atheists live now without God inside them. They seem less stressed out and more well adjusted than Christians, so why aren't we in torture now without God?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Doesn't the concept of a fiery physical hell rely on Revelation? Do any non-fundamentalist theists take that seriously anymore?

A literal physical hell just isn't defensible on any level of debate, and the idea of a hell un-attached to god is not very scary...I really think the concept of hell will go away for most theists, or at least be so watered down that it is meaningless.

In order for us atheists to be completely tortured, we would need Christians in hell with us continually telling us how we need to love and give our lives to their invisible friend. So hell can't exist without Christians there to literally annoy the hell out of us with their religion.

Awww. Isn't that sweet. <3

Quote:

If God is not there and has never been there, how can God or you know that hell is all that bad?

I take it you are saying if God exists, how can he/it know what hell actually is, and if I have not been there, how do I know anything at all? You ever been to Spain? Or France? No? Do they stop existing because you have not seen them?

Quote:

Maybe Satan and all the atheists are all just having a great time, better than heaven.

More power to them.

Quote:

God would never know, since he doesn't ever hang out there.

Hmmm? I'm not sure you have fully thought this through. Research "God", then "There" (as in locus), then ask yourself would an omniscient thing not know something that we presumably could?

Quote:

And atheists live now without God inside them. They seem less stressed out and more well adjusted than Christians, so why aren't we in torture now without God?

Wow, what an inference! "My life as an atheist=good so every atheist's life=good." Reminds me of that saying, "Every man has a day of birth, so there is a day of birth that every man has."

Lol, jokes aside, I'm not sure I'd entirely agree. "Why aren't you being tortured?" I don't think it works like that - torture would be proof of God for one, negating faith. Two: I'm not sure you are worth it

Its been a long time since I even opened a bible but if memory serves me well, "Hell" is taken to mean "separate(d) from God." There are several translations from the hebrew text, each having a different meaning.

please enlighten me. i only ever had one hebrew course as a part of my religion major, but i'm pretty sure the only hebrew word traditionally rendered "hell" is "sheol" which is variously interpreted as one's physical grave or at most a sort of waiting room for the dead. there was definitely no connotation of torment or separation from god. such a thing might have been possible to the writers of most of the hebrew bible, since their God was often both anthropomorphized and localized. it's highly doubtful such a concept of "spiritual" separation would ever have occured to them, however, until the advent of platonic influences. it's still up in the air if the writers of the hebrew bible even conceived of a conscious afterlife.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Its been a long time since I even opened a bible but if memory serves me well, "Hell" is taken to mean "separate(d) from God." There are several translations from the hebrew text, each having a different meaning.

please enlighten me. i only ever had one hebrew course as a part of my religion major, but i'm pretty sure the only hebrew word traditionally rendered "hell" is "sheol" which is variously interpreted as one's physical grave or at most a sort of waiting room for the dead. there was definitely no connotation of torment or separation from god. such a thing might have been possible to the writers of most of the hebrew bible, since their God was often both anthropomorphized and localized. it's highly doubtful such a concept of "spiritual" separation would ever have occured to them, however, until the advent of platonic influences. it's still up in the air if the writers of the hebrew bible even conceived of a conscious afterlife.

Well, through the Greek we also have Gehenna which corresponds to the Hinnom valley. 2,000 years ago, that was a landfill that was more or less constantly on fire. It was there that the bodies of those executed for various crimes against the temple were disposed of. Also, wherever god jr. mentions the matter, the word Gehenna is used, thus leading me to think that he probably had a real place in mind.

Its been a long time since I even opened a bible but if memory serves me well, "Hell" is taken to mean "separate(d) from God." There are several translations from the hebrew text, each having a different meaning.

please enlighten me. i only ever had one hebrew course as a part of my religion major, but i'm pretty sure the only hebrew word traditionally rendered "hell" is "sheol" which is variously interpreted as one's physical grave or at most a sort of waiting room for the dead. there was definitely no connotation of torment or separation from god. such a thing might have been possible to the writers of most of the hebrew bible, since their God was often both anthropomorphized and localized. it's highly doubtful such a concept of "spiritual" separation would ever have occured to them, however, until the advent of platonic influences. it's still up in the air if the writers of the hebrew bible even conceived of a conscious afterlife.

Well, through the Greek we also have Gehenna which corresponds to the Hinnom valley. 2,000 years ago, that was a landfill that was more or less constantly on fire. It was there that the bodies of those executed for various crimes against the temple were disposed of. Also, wherever god jr. mentions the matter, the word Gehenna is used, thus leading me to think that he probably had a real place in mind.

i am slightly more competent in greek than hebrew (read: two courses rather than one) and of course i'm aware of "gehenna" and how it differs from both the hebrew "sheol" and the greek "hades." one could convincingly argue that jesus's use of "gehenna" is an analogy for some form of torment, but still, the idea of "separation from god" cannot be directly inferred from either "gehenna" or "hades." in fact, drawing from my experience as a former evangelical, i would say whoever would make the claim that the biblical idea of "hell" means "separation from god" has a greater knowledge of bill bright's famous "four spiritual laws" than biblical hebrew or greek.

anyway, if i understood him (her?) correctly, jumbo seemed to claim that several hebrew terms are typically translated as "hell" and that at least one of them clearly connotes "separation from god." i was merely asking for said hebrew term(s).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

i'm pretty sure the only hebrew word traditionally rendered "hell" is "sheol" which is variously interpreted as one's physical grave or at most a sort of waiting room for the dead.

Well, I really don't know much about christianity to be honest, but I think pergitory is separation from God. If not, then is God in pergitory, or with those in pergitory? I don't actually know.

Quote:

there was definitely no connotation of torment or separation from god. such a thing might have been possible to the writers of most of the hebrew bible, since their God was often both anthropomorphized and localized.

You will notice that I did not say anything about torment or the like.

Quote:

it's highly doubtful such a concept of "spiritual" separation would ever have occured to them, however, until the advent of platonic influences. it's still up in the air if the writers of the hebrew bible even conceived of a conscious afterlife.

... All in all, the western interpretation of "hell" is inaccurate at best. If you are dead, yet still alive, but in a place not quite hell yet not quite heaven, then you are presumably without God who resides in Heaven. I think you are right, the concept of "spritual" is problematic in this context.

Quote:

So god knows you're not in contact with him and maintains that void of contact to sustain this hell?

I'm not sure i understand the point you are making. Can you elaborate for me?

Quote:

anyway, if i understood him (her?) correctly, jumbo seemed to claim that several hebrew terms are typically translated as "hell" and that at least one of them clearly connotes "separation from god." i was merely asking for said hebrew term(s).

I have no idea about these terms. However, if separation from God did not occur, then would there be much point in believing or behaving in accordance with the bible? ps i am a he/him/man thing.

However, if separation from God did not occur, then would there be much point in believing or behaving in accordance with the bible?

Shouldn't the "point" be that it's the truth?

What, are you suggesting that Christians only believe out of fear?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

However, if separation from God did not occur, then would there be much point in believing or behaving in accordance with the bible?

Shouldn't the "point" be that it's the truth?

What, are you suggesting that Christians only believe out of fear?

actually, i've known several fundies who would at least say that the only valid motivation for accepting christ as one's savior is "fear of the wrath to come," and that any other motivation makes a conversion suspect at best.

i'm fairly certain this is ray comfort's view.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Person X believes in God their entire life, refraining from sin and following every word in the bible because person X is afraid of God's wrath.

Person Y sins all their life, does not believe in God and is quite wretched.

If no spearation from God occurrs at all, then X and Y would have the exact same relationship (perhaps even "location&quot with God when they die regardless of their actions on earth.

If their actions on earth have little or no impact on the afterlife, then committing suicide would be considered a good thing for person X, since they would be meeting their maker sooner - the action of suicide being irrelevant.

Given by: If p then q

if q then r.

I think a likely thing to be lost by actions/inactions is one's relationship with God (Not q). Therefore we could infer (Not p). Interestingly, no inferences can be made about (not r).

If this sense of loss is timeless, then that is a definite motivation for me to consider very carefully my actions in this lifetime.

Is this believing out of fear? Some would say yes, others no. Personally, I don't think fear is telling the complete story (p v q, ~p therefore ~q being fallacious). It may have a role to play, but others may believe out of sheer love or whatever, sidestepping fear altogther.

This post is largely subjective (speculative?), but you are asking me about hell and the nature of belief. I am not a theologian, so all I can offer is my opinion.

actually, i've known several fundies who would at least say that the only valid motivation for accepting christ as one's savior is "fear of the wrath to come," and that any other motivation makes a conversion suspect at best.

Oh, I agree. My reply to jumbo was somewhat rhetorical. I'm sure there's lots of Christians, Muslims, etc. who believe in God partly based on the potential consequences or on some incoherent paraphrase of Pascal's Wager.

jumbo1410 wrote:

Is this believing out of fear? Some would say yes, others no. Personally, I don't think fear is telling the complete story (p v q, ~p therefore ~q being fallacious). It may have a role to play, but others may believe out of sheer love or whatever, sidestepping fear altogther.

The whole thing annoys me. I believe claims that I think are true, and I don't believe claims that I don't think are true. Appeal to consequences don't affect the validity of claims.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Oh, I agree. My reply to jumbo was somewhat rhetorical. I'm sure there's lots of Christians, Muslims, etc. who believe in God partly based on the potential consequences or on some incoherent paraphrase of Pascal's Wager.

yeah, but they don't usually come out and blatantly say the ONLY valid reason is being afraid of hell, but there are a certain breed who do just that. most would tell you it's due at least in part to wanting a purpose in life or never feeling lonely again, blah blah blah. i remember witnessing a debate between two christian friends in college specifically about this. one was a fear-only fundy, the other was the typical i-came-to-god-to-fill-the-hole-in-my-life kind. they were good friends with each other, so the fundy didn't quite have the heart to tell him, "you're not a real christian then," but he was definitely insinuating it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

The whole thing annoys me. I believe claims that I think are true, and I don't believe claims that I don't think are true. Appeal to consequences don't affect the validity of claims.

Ahh... plainly... no, you're wrong. Ever heard of a reductio ad absurdum? They are a perfectly logical and valid example of consequence based logic.

Additionally, when given conditionals such as p v q, one of only two intitial valid inferences that can be made is modus tollens (~q) - consequence (consequent) based objections. Which brings me to your first point:

Quote:

I'm sure there's lots of Christians, Muslims, etc. who believe in God partly based on the potential consequences or on some incoherent paraphrase of Pascal's Wager.

Incoherent? Is this because you cannot follow what is being said? Care to elaborate?

The whole thing annoys me. I believe claims that I think are true, and I don't believe claims that I don't think are true. Appeal to consequences don't affect the validity of claims.

Ahh... plainly... no, you're wrong. Ever heard of a reductio ad absurdum? They are a perfectly logical and valid example of consequence based logic.

Additionally, when given conditionals such as p v q, one of only two intitial valid inferences that can be made is modus tollens (~q) - consequence (consequent) based objections. Which brings me to your first point:

Quote:

I'm sure there's lots of Christians, Muslims, etc. who believe in God partly based on the potential consequences or on some incoherent paraphrase of Pascal's Wager.

Incoherent? Is this because you cannot follow what is being said? Care to elaborate?

The appeal to consequences fallacy has nothing to do with logical consequences.

"If you don't believe in my form of God, you'll burn in my God's form of hell" - appeal to consequences fallacy.

Pascal's Wager is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy so it is logically incoherent (in all forms).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

The whole thing annoys me. I believe claims that I think are true, and I don't believe claims that I don't think are true. Appeal to consequences don't affect the validity of claims.

Ahh... plainly... no, you're wrong. Ever heard of a reductio ad absurdum? They are a perfectly logical and valid example of consequence based logic.

Additionally, when given conditionals such as p v q, one of only two intitial valid inferences that can be made is modus tollens (~q) - consequence (consequent) based objections. Which brings me to your first point:

I know what reductio ad absurdum and modus tollens is. I'm talking about argumentum ad consequentiam when someone argues that the premise is true/false because it has desirable/undesirable consequences. The way I understand it, neither reductio ad absurdum nor modus tollens would be an appeal to consequences. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

jumbo1410 wrote:

Incoherent? Is this because you cannot follow what is being said? Care to elaborate?

Can't follow a theist that's using a hack version of Pascal's Wager? Oh man, that'd be really sad.

What? You want me to come up with some examples? I've heard this stupid crap like a thousand times.

"Think about it this way. If God exists, I'll go heaven, and you'll go to hell. If he doesn't exist, nothing bad will happen. So, obviously, even if there's not enough evidence for God, you should believe in him anyways."

"At least if I'm wrong, we'll just both turn into trees or whatever weird stuff you atheists believe. But, if you're wrong, well, let's say you should bring some water *triumphant grin*."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

The appeal to consequences fallacy has nothing to do with logical consequences.

"If you don't believe in my form of God, you'll burn in my God's form of hell" - appeal to consequences fallacy.

Pascal's Wager is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy so it is logically incoherent (in all forms).

Quote:

Can't follow a theist that's using a hack version of Pascal's Wager? Oh man, that'd be really sad.

What? You want me to come up with some examples? I've heard this stupid crap like a thousand times.

"Think about it this way. If God exists, I'll go heaven, and you'll go to hell. If he doesn't exist, nothing bad will happen. So, obviously, even if there's not enough evidence for God, you should believe in him anyways."

"At least if I'm wrong, we'll just both turn into trees or whatever weird stuff you atheists believe. But, if you're wrong, well, let's say you should bring some water *triumphant grin*."

Ummm, I am not even using Pascal's Wager, nor am I trying to convince you that a God exists. We are positing a God to argue the existence or non-existence of hell. I even put the logical form in so it would be easier for objections to be levelled at what I was saying.

Here is the less condensed version of what I have said:

IF(no spearation from God occurrs at all) THEN (X and Y would have the exact same relationship with God when they die)

IF(X/Y have the exact same relationship w/God) THEN(their actions on earth have little or no impact on the afterlife)

IF(their actions have little or no impact on the afterlife) THEN(committing suicide would be considered a good thing for person X)

Given by:

IF p THEN q

IF q THEN r

IF r THEN s

X = believes in God, refraining from sin and following every word in the bible.

Y = sins, does not believe in God, wretched.

The above is a reductio ad absurdum compiled in response to iwbeik:

Quote:

"but still, the idea of "separation from god" cannot be directly inferred from either "gehenna" or "hades." in fact, drawing from my experience as a former evangelical, i would say whoever would make the claim that the biblical idea of "hell" means "separation from god" has a greater knowledge of bill bright's famous "four spiritual laws" than biblical hebrew or greek."

I said, "However, if separation from God did not occur, then would there be much point in believing or behaving in accordance with the bible?"

To which butterbattle posted in response, "Shouldn't the "point" be that it's the truth? What, are you suggesting that Christians only believe out of fear?"

Quote:

Is {argument above} believing out of fear?...Personally, I don't think fear is telling the complete story (p v q, ~p therefore ~q being fallacious). It may have a role to play, but others may believe out of sheer love or whatever, sidestepping fear altogther.

Here we have "p v q":

IF(no spearation from God occurrs at all) THEN (our actions on earth have little or no impact on the afterlife)

..Which is a hypothetical syllogism of the extended argument. In the original argument, I combined q with r to get s, but this does not change anything - it just made it shorter instead of all this stuff. Moving to the main point:

p v r, ~p therefore ~r being fallacious:

"It is not the case that no spearation from God occurrs at all"

---

"It is not the case that our actions on earth have little or no impact on the afterlife"

Or:

"Separation from God occurs"

---

"Our actions may directly lead to hell"

...And I have said the above is FALSE. In simpler terms, any argument based on: "You will be separated from God by your actions so act good for fear of hell" and using fear to persuade people into belief, is comitting a falacy.

There is no appeal to consequence falacy on my behalf.

There is no reference to Pascal's wager.

You have built a straw man.

You clearly did not understand what I was saying.

Now if anything above is wrong, feel free to debate it, but please be specific. I would appreciate any objection to be in logical form so I do not have to post such large responses. If you can't manage that, can you at least object to what I have said, and not what you think I am saying? Please?

Whatever the reason, we're obviously having a very hard time communicating with each other.

Quote:

Ummm, I am not even using Pascal's Wager, nor am I trying to convince you that a God exists.

I didn't say you were, but okay.

Quote:

IF (no spearation from God occurrs at all) THEN (X and Y would have the exact same relationship with God when they die)

IF(X/Y have the exact same relationship w/God) THEN(their actions on earth have little or no impact on the afterlife)

IF(their actions have little or no impact on the afterlife) THEN(committing suicide would be considered a good thing for person X)

Given by:

IF p THEN q

IF q THEN r

IF r THEN s

X = believes in God, refraining from sin and following every word in the bible.

Y = sins, does not believe in God, wretched.

The above is a reductio ad absurdum compiled in response to iwbeik:

I'm really confused. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

This is a reductio ad absurdum, right?

Okay, you said, if their actions have little or no impact on the afterlife, then committing suicide would be considered a good thing for person X? Why is that a good thing? So they get to heaven faster?

Quote:

"Separation from God occurs"

---

"Our actions may directly lead to hell"

...And I have said the above is FALSE. In simpler terms, any argument based on: "You will be separated from God by your actions so act good for fear of hell" and using fear to persuade people into belief, is comitting a falacy.

Using fear to persuade people into belief is a fallacy? Yes, I agree.

Quote:

There is no appeal to consequence falacy on my behalf.

There is no reference to Pascal's wager.

You have built a straw man.

You clearly did not understand what I was saying.

I still don't understand what you're saying. Alright, here's what you wrote earlier.

Quote:

Person X believes in God their entire life, refraining from sin and following every word in the bible because person X is afraid of God's wrath.

Person Y sins all their life, does not believe in God and is quite wretched.

If no spearation from God occurrs at all, then X and Y would have the exact same relationship (perhaps even "location&quot with God when they die regardless of their actions on earth.

If their actions on earth have little or no impact on the afterlife, then committing suicide would be considered a good thing for person X, since they would be meeting their maker sooner - the action of suicide being irrelevant.

Given by: If p then q

if q then r.

I think a likely thing to be lost by actions/inactions is one's relationship with God (Not q). Therefore we could infer (Not p). Interestingly, no inferences can be made about (not r).

If this sense of loss is timeless, then that is a definite motivation for me to consider very carefully my actions in this lifetime.

Is this believing out of fear? Some would say yes, others no. Personally, I don't think fear is telling the complete story (p v q, ~p therefore ~q being fallacious). It may have a role to play, but others may believe out of sheer love or whatever, sidestepping fear altogther.

This post is largely subjective (speculative?), but you are asking me about hell and the nature of belief. I am not a theologian, so all I can offer is my opinion.

Um, okay, there is motivation to consider your actions in this lifetime because.......you could potentially lose your relationship with God? How do you know what actions you should take or not take?

What's the point you're trying to make?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Ha ha ha, ok. No worries, I thought you were being ignorant on purpose, thats all.

Quote:

Okay, you said, if their actions have little or no impact on the afterlife, then committing suicide would be considered a good thing for person X? Why is that a good thing? So they get to heaven faster?

Yes, that is what I am assuming, if there is no seperation from God. I am not saying this is the actual case, as I am not a theologian. This has very little to do with your point though, this was a reply to another post.

Quote:

Using fear to persuade people into belief is a fallacy? Yes, I agree.

Yeah. That is the gist of it. However, just because a given argument is invalid, or commits a fallacy, this does not mean the conclusion is actually wrong. It's a strange quirk of philosophy. Fear may very well perrsuade people into belief.

Quote:

Um, okay, there is motivation to consider your actions in this lifetime because.......you could potentially lose your relationship with God? How do you know what actions you should take or not take?.

That is a very good question, the short answer may not be very satisfying. I believe that every human being knows the right and wrong thing to do, regardless of belief. Among other things of course.

Quote:

What's the point you're trying to make?

I am running late for a BBQ, I wish I could answer more precisely. My point is... well there really is no point. What is the point of flying a kite? For the pleasure of the flyer? Can you tell me the point of anything? This goes back to the meaning of life debate. To my knowledge, it remains unanswered. I like your sig, "Live a good life." Anyone levelling an objection to the sentence "I believe that every human being knows the right and wrong thing to do" will have a real problem with it though.

There really is no way to make sense of hell. The best I can say is that if it exists its not that bad. It is a choice beyond good or evil. There is no reason why some would choose God and others wouldnt. Even the bible says noone wants God but he chooses some based not on works. Not real helpful. Neither calvinism or armenianism explain it. I know that I would like to be in a world where there is no sin even if I have to give up whatever it is that makes me rebellious. So somehow we would not all be robots but we would want to be there in heaven without the desire to be evil. I think part of it is a question of resources. If you want stuff you cant have youre always going to be fucked. So somehow heaven isnt like that. But technically since we are all sinners we all need purgation before going to heaven. So why not just purge everybody and not just a few. Everyone is rebellious to some extent even after getting saved. That part doesnt make sense either. Infinite punishment for finite crimes doesnt make sense. No two christians agree on what hell will be like anyway. Its pointless to talk about unless you want to scare someone into believing. I personally dont care either way anymore. Destruction or heaven is fine. Torture would suck. But I dont think it would be that bad. Just a soul with no body. How bad could it be.

I believe that every human being knows the right and wrong thing to do, regardless of belief. Among other things of course.

I agree that we have a conscience, our instincts. However, I don't think that these always inform us of what is right or wrong. Usually, but not always. For example, we have a natural disposition to put other people into an in-group and out-groups, such that we can treat our in-group with kindness and generosity while committing horrible acts against those in out-groups. Basically, we tend to discriminate based on trivial labels and characteristics. As became evident in another thread, we also have a strong repulsion to eating other humans, but there seems to be no logical justification for this.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

I think all of you are avoiding the real answers I'm looking for here. I wanted some good gorey fire and brimstone stories. c'mon this is no fun! I know most fundamentalists truly believe in hell, so where are you hiding, and why haven't I heard your stories? Quit beating around the bush already!

"God is omnipresent." This statement is different from "I am omnipresent."

Firstly, if God constitues me, and God is everywhere, then I am everywhere - is a fallacy of composition.

1. All G is M

2. All G is E

---

3. All M is E

This is obvious. I am not God, but presumably God is everywhere.

So what do I mean when I say "omnipresence" and "separation"?

From Google definitions: "It is the quality of being present in all places at all times (Jer. 23:23.4). [God] is not bound by time and space. This does not mean that nature is a part of God and is, therefore, to be worshiped. Creation is separate from God, but not independent of [God]."

Presumably then, separation is compossible with omnipresence. Now, if you look at what I said intially, "IMO hell is any existence without God" you could take it to mean "total separation from God" without being "totally independent from God".

I am not a theologian, so there are limits to my knowledge, as there are yours. However, I am happy to keep debating. Once again, very good question.

"God is omnipresent." This statement is different from "I am omnipresent."

Firstly, if God constitues me, and God is everywhere, then I am everywhere - is a fallacy of composition.

[...]

I am not God, but presumably God is everywhere.

So ... in the set of all spaces, all of which are occupied by God, how would one be not in one of those spaces (and thus separated from God)? Does "separated" have some special meaning in this context?

I think all of you are avoiding the real answers I'm looking for here. I wanted some good gorey fire and brimstone stories. c'mon this is no fun! I know most fundamentalists truly believe in hell, so where are you hiding, and why haven't I heard your stories? Quit beating around the bush already!

They get most of their stuff from Milton or Dante anyway. That fiery-but-freezing nonsense is dull. Let's get real hells going.

Here's another one: You're the host of an eternal talk show, where the only guests are Paris Hilton and Neil Peart, and you can't tell them how much they suck, despite ample video proof.

THEN

just as you've slipped into madness, and will only talk to Ms. Hilton's dog, you're spirited away to a fresh new hell, where you're surrounded by television screens, like that douchey hyper-verbal part of one of the Matrix movies, only on each screen, instead of images of the world's worst actor, like in the Matrix, it's thousands of business channels, where all they do is talk about why this or that happened to interest rates. And that's all you get to watch is vacuous morons like Jim Cramer, pandering to an audience that he must imagine are about as bright as a pack of shit-flinging chimpanzees.

Very true about Dante. I just wanted to hear about the hell they so fear, from their own minds and mouths.

And sadly enough, my hell would probably be having to move back in with my fundy mother for all eternity, and having to listen to her 'miracle' stories, and how much her jeebus helped her, and how i'm going to her imaginary hell because i'm gay, on a loop. Oh wait, been there done that; except for the eternity part that is.

And then I would constantly be surrounded by Fred Phelps and his crew, with their assinine posters, while they sing gospel songs.

Now, the real torturous thing would be if I wasn't able to move or say a word back to any of these idiots for all of eternity.

And sadly enough, my hell would probably be having to move back in with my fundy mother for all eternity, and having to listen to her 'miracle' stories, and how much her jeebus helped her, and how i'm going to her imaginary hell because i'm gay, on a loop. Oh wait, been there done that; except for the eternity part that is.

Yeah, being gay is practically worse than murder, somehow. It's like you've taken the preference for vanilla ice cream that you're supposed to have, and completely ignored it in favour of a totally unnatural preference for chocolate ice cream.

These are the things that keep Yahweh up at night. Right. The plight of the homeless, destitute, or disease stricken is fine and everything but if I see any more hot lesbian sex, I'm going to tear down the whole earth and start again! Don't make me come down there!

Very true about Dante. I just wanted to hear about the hell they so fear, from their own minds and mouths.

And sadly enough, my hell would probably be having to move back in with my fundy mother for all eternity, and having to listen to her 'miracle' stories, and how much her jeebus helped her, and how i'm going to her imaginary hell because i'm gay, on a loop. Oh wait, been there done that; except for the eternity part that is.

And then I would constantly be surrounded by Fred Phelps and his crew, with their assinine posters, while they sing gospel songs.

Now, the real torturous thing would be if I wasn't able to move or say a word back to any of these idiots for all of eternity.

this sounds awful, but i have to say, imo it could be worse. the phelps clan are so absurd they're basically just self-caricatures. the bile they spew is akin to a four year-old's tantrum, so i don't think i could ever let it bother me, except perhaps in terms of the raw noise factor.

now what would bother ME would be a roomful of smarmy, self-righteous members/staff workers of campus crusade for christ or fellowship of christian athletes or some organization like that who constantly assure me they LOVE me. they love me, bro, they're prayin' for me, but i'm just flat wrong for sayin' it's ok to be gay or it's perfectly possible to live a full, satisfying life without believing in a god for desert nomads, and here's WHY. then with knowing smiles between themselves they jerk out the josh mcdowell, the lee strobel, and the c.s. lewis. they hit me over the head repeatedly with lord, liar, lunatic and the proven fact that atheism leads by necessity to selfishness and immorality. "see, in the ORIGINAL GREEK, it's blah blah blah...oh, you took greek? well...maybe you're right but my discipler told me it was this..."

oh, hell? yeeeeaaaah...sure there's a hell, but god doesn't want THAT for me, so let's tiptoe around that (shit-eating grin, shit-eating grin), he LOVES me and has a WONDERFUL PLAN for my life. ok, bra? now let's go play hacky sack. i'll run up to the room and get my expensive taylor acoustic-electric that my folks bought me, on which i can only bang out five or six chords, and my buddy chad here will run get his djembe and we'll WORSHIP.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Yeah, being gay is practically worse than murder, somehow. It's like you've taken the preference for vanilla ice cream that you're supposed to have, and completely ignored it in favour of a totally unnatural preference for chocolate ice cream.

These are the things that keep Yahweh up at night. Right. The plight of the homeless, destitute, or disease stricken is fine and everything but if I see any more hot lesbian sex, I'm going to tear down the whole earth and start again! Don't make me come down there!

Why, oh why, are we atheists the weird ones?

I really don't think that represents the mojority of theists around. Perhaps not even the majority of christians, but I wouldn't know - I haven't asked them all. It is amusing to watch your pain though... wait, is that appropriate?

Quote:

So ... in the set of all spaces, all of which are occupied by God, how would one be not in one of those spaces (and thus separated from God)? Does "separated" have some special meaning in this context?

Bah, who knows? Is an omnipresent candle able to shed light? Is movement in higher dimesions percieved in lower ones? If an omnipresent being is everywhere, and hell is somewhere, is that omnipresent being in hell? Is the devil God, or part thereof?

I could offer some sort of 11D theory babble, or defend omnipresence on the liguistics/semantics front, or offer something out of the Bible. It all ends at the same point though.

Hell is when I open my eyes in the morning and realize that I'm still breathing.

Oh you and your cycle of self-reinforcing depression. I take it the cognitive behavioral therapy didn't work?

( turn on mock-indignation ) Gee whiz Will, it was just a single off-hand comment. It's not like I paint my fingernails black and walk around dressed like some kind of depressed emo / vampire so people will notice me....and no the CBT didn't work for me, but thanks for asking. ( turn off mock-indignation )

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

( turn on mock-indignation ) Gee whiz Will, it was just a single off-hand comment. It's not like I paint my fingernails black and walk around dressed like some kind of depressed emo / vampire so people will notice me....and no the CBT didn't work for me, but thanks for asking. ( turn off mock-indignation )

I think we really need to talk about your non-emo wardrobe. Have you tried black lipstick? I hear that makes you look the depressedest.